An Outbreak of Consensus: Scottish Politics after Devolution
| DOI | 10.1111/j.2041-9066.2010.00011.x |
| Author | Charlie Jeffery |
| Date | 01 April 2010 |
| Published date | 01 April 2010 |
| Subject Matter | Feature |
ity) resolved to establish ‘an independently
chaired commission to review devolution
in Scotland’. The Westminster government
signalled its support for this commission in
January 2008 and what became the Com-
mission on Scottish Devolution began its
work in April 2008, chaired by Sir Kenneth
Calman.
The Calman Commission reported in
June 2009, and most of its recommenda-
tions featured in the White Paper Scotland’s
Future in the United Kingdom, published in
November 2009 (Commission on Scottish
Devolution, 2009; Scotland Offi ce, 2009).
Meanwhile, the National Conversation
unfolded through a mix of online discus-
An Outbreak of Consensus:
Scottish Politics after
Devolution
It was a little like waiting for an Edin-
burgh bus. Nothing much happens for
ages, then two come along at once. So
it was with devolution review processes in
Scotland: after years of inactivity, suddenly
two review processes began almost simul-
taneously.
In August 2007 the newly elected Scot-
tish National Party government published
a White Paper on Scotland’s constitutional
options – Choosing Scotland’s Future – and
launched the ‘National Conversation’, a
consultation process around the themes in
the White Paper (Scottish Executive, 2007).
A little over three months later the Scottish
Parliament (by a vote of its unionist major-
Scotland’s major political parties are typically described as either nationalist or unionist. But has devolution
changed their position on the ‘national question’? Is the political will for devolution north of the border being
reflected in the corridors of Westminster? Charlie Jeffery investigates.
sion forums and consultation meetings held
around Scotland. This ‘conversation’ fed
into a Scottish government White Paper,
Your Scotland, Your Voice: A National Conver-
sation, published a week after the Calman
Commission’s White Paper in December
2009 (Scottish Government, 2009).
These two devolution review processes
came up with very different conclusions.
The National Conversation set out three
options:
• continuing with the current constitutional
settlement with no or minimal change;
• extending devolved power in Scotland
in areas identifi ed during the National
Conversation; or
• taking the steps to allow Scotland to
become a fully independent country.
The Calman Commission had a more con-
strained remit, looking at:
• enabling the Scottish Parliament to serve
the people of Scotland better;
• improving the fi nancial accountability of
the Scottish Parliament; and
• continuing to secure the position of
Scotland within the United Kingdom.
The latter point explicitly excluded inde-
pendence as an option, refl ecting the Cal-
man Commission’s genesis in discussions
among the unionist parties in late 2007.
Equally the National Conversation, refl ect-
ing the Scottish National Party’s ambitions
for an independent Scotland, had no remit
to ‘secure the position of Scotland within
the UK’.
© Larry Lee Photography/CORBIS
32 Political Insight
To continue reading
Request your trial